A knowledge organisation system for taxonomic data

What this was about

Niels Klazenga argued that problems with taxonomic checklists are data-quality issues that are fixable, and presented a layered data model developed as a reference implementation for his flora following ratification of TCS 2 (Taxon Concept Schema) last December. The model separates concerns into semantics (taxon concepts), syntax (names, typification, usages), authority (references, agents), governance (taxon trees and revisions) and narrative (profiles), plus identity, infrastructure and extension layers, using 'sidecar' patterns to keep taxon concepts immutable. He mapped layers to TCS, Plinian Core and Darwin Core, noted that governance is not covered by any standard, and proposed a conceptual model for taxon data developed with the Darwin Core maintenance group.

Why it matters. Offers a concrete reference architecture for taxon-concept-based systems and identifies gaps (governance, conceptual model) in current TDWG standards.

In the room

• TCS was ratified last December; reference implementations are needed for uptake.
• Taxon concepts (scientific hypotheses) are central; names sit in a separate syntax layer, following David Remsen's distinction between syntax and semantics.
• Authority (references, agents) links to all layers; governance holds taxon trees, nodes and revisions; narrative holds profiles and most flora content.
• Identity (external IDs such as IPNI, Tropicos, MycoBank), infrastructure and extension layers support the system.
• Sidecar extensions (name types, reference roles) and functional sidecars (tree node, profile) keep taxon concepts immutable.
• Maps (name usages, relationships) are used in tabular data but are not entities with identifiers.
• Phylogeny had to be core rather than an extension since it expresses domain semantics.

Notable moments